Case Law

The basic elements of prescriptive easements:

  • PG&E v. Crockett Land & Cattle Company (1924) 70 Cal.App. 283
  • Zumino v. Gabriel (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 613
  • LeDeit v. Ehlert (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 154
  • Zimmer v. Dykstra (1974) 79 Cal.App.3d 422

Tacking successive uses to make up the prescriptive period:

  • 72 A.L.R.3d 648

Definite and certain line of travel:

  • Dooling v. Dabel (1947) 82 Cal.App.2d 417
  • Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings (1984) 35 Cal.3d 564
  • Bustillos v. Murphy (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1277

Period interrupted during pending of lawsuit:

  • Welsher v. Glickman (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 134
  • Yorba v. Anaheim Water Company (1953) 41 Cal.2d 265

Oral protests do not interrupt prescriptive use:

  • Lord v. Sanchez (1955) 136 Cal.App.2d 704
  • 6 Hastings L.J. 104

Continuity of use for the prescriptive period:

  • MacDonald Properties, Inc. v. Bel-Air Country Club (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 693
  • Felgenhauer v. Soni (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 445

Prescriptive rights cannot be gained against property owned by a public entity or dedicated to public use by a public utility:

  • Civil Code section 1001
  • Bartholomew v. Staheli (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 844
  • City of Oakland v. Burns (1956) 46 Cal.2d 401

Whether the elements of prescriptive easements are established is a question of fact for the trial court or jury:

  • O’Banion v. Borba (1948) 32 Cal.2d 145
  • Adams v. Smith (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 910
  • Berry v. Sbragia (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 876

Burden of Proof:

  • Hahn v. Curtis (1946) 73 Cal.App.2d 382
  • Smith v. Skrbek (1949) 71 Cal.App.2d 351
  • Bennett v. Lew (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1177

One cannot acquire an easement of light or air:

  • Western Granite & Marble v. Knickerbocker (1894) 103 Cal. 111
  • Kucera v. Lizza (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1141
  • Katcher v. Home Savings & Loan Assoc. (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 425

Plainly apparent accessories of a pipeline on the surface constitute notice:

  • Jones v. Harmon (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 869
  • 55 A.L.R.2d 1169

Extent of easement by prescription ordinarily is limited to the actual user:

  • Anderson v. Southern California Edison (1926) 77 Cal.App. 328
  • Sylva v. Kuck (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 127

Manner of use is determined by the actual use:

  • Allen v. San Jose Land & Water Co. (1891) 92 Cal. 138
  • Guerra v. Packard (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 272
  • Bartholomew v. Staheli (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 844
  • Smith v. Rock Creek Water Corp. (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 49
  • Connolly v. McDermott (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 973
  • Twin Peaks Land Co. v. Briggs (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 587

Permissible changes in use:

  • O’Banion v. Borba (1948) 32 Cal.2d 145
  • Hill v. Allan (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 470
  • Ward v. Monrovia (1940) 16 Cal.2d 815
  • Sylva v. Kuck (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 127

No prescriptive easement that excludes owner:

  • Silacci v. Abramson (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 558
  • Mehdizadeh v. Mincer (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1296
  • Harrison v. Welch (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1084
  • Kepner v. Meadowhawk Ranch Association (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1082

But see:

  • Otay Water District Buckwith (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1041
  • Hirschfield v. Schwartz (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 749

Prescriptive easement cannot be obtained against a landlord’s reversionary intent:

  • Dietrich Int. Track Sales v. J.S. & J Services (1992) 3 Cal.App.3d 769
  • Smith v. Cap Concrete (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 769
  • Civil Code section 741

The common law right to lateral support of land in its neutral state may not be enlarged by prescription:

  • Sullivan v. Seiner (1893) 98 C. 346

Abandonment through Subdivision Map Act:

  • Negron v. Dundee (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1502
  • Government Code section 66410 et. seq.

Sale of the dominant property:

  • Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1602